Birdsong v. Tuttle

52 Ark. 91
Supreme Court of Arkansas·Decided May 15, 1889·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Exemption: Domicile Garnishment A person temporarily residing in another State, who has a domicile in this State,-may claim his exemption of personal property from sale under process, under Sec. 1, Art. 9, of the Constitution of 1874.

The provision is remedial and should be liberally construed. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Hart, 38 Ark., 112. The word resident should be accepted in its broader sense.

The act of November 27, 1875, gives no right not granted by this clause, and is constitutional. Winter & Co. v. Simpson et al., 42 Ark., 410.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Birdsong v. Tuttle, 52 Ark. 91 (Ark. 1889).

52 Ark. 91 (Birdsong v. Tuttle) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rancourt v. Hahn
20 Ohio C.C. Dec. 245 (Cuyahoga Circuit Court, 1907)
Parker v. Independence Produce Co.
53 S.W. 335 (Court Of Appeals Of Indian Territory, 1899)